Just to validate my question, I have seen many architects utilize the "problem solving" angle in their practice and approach.

?

Because Natural Problem Solvers have a propensity to become Architects.
Wrap your brain around that one!

I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems.

Is that a validation of balambum's validation?

yeah, we solve problems and whatnot...

let's try to more eloquently re-state this question.

are architects actually trained to solve the problems that society values? what is considered valuable? do we corner the market on problem-solving? if problem-solving is a common act, then how does one differentiate their method of problem-solving or validate their process of problem-solving versus that commonly undertaken by others within the profession or within other professions?

does that restate the question above more clearly?

if one more person compares architects to construction workers i am going to hit them over the head with a 2x4 or the hammer that is in my pink tool belt.

we are problem solvers. we are the creators of your society. without all of the pretty buildings for you to inhabit you would be living in a van...down by the river.

and last time i checked the guy that adds numbers in the 70th floor of one of the buildings we designed didn't have to think about the problem of the social impact one of his total figures would have on the declining urban fabric he passes on his way home to his McMansion.

We deal with real problems, not superficial arrangements of biennial facts.

We're not trained to think that we are problem solvers, we are problem solvers.

solve one problem. create a new problem...

What is it exactly you want ?

++ vindpust.

Building is about more problems than just what the client wants. The client, for example, may not give a fig about sustainability or the public space around a building, but it is the architect's responsibility to take these problems into account as well. If the architect doesn't, no one will.

okay, this is a really stupid thread.
can we reframe this one please? as is the question stated by the title is rather ridiculous....who cares whether we're taught that we are or not...or if any other profession does it or not....yes, problem-solvign is fundamental to modern society and is the basis of the capitalist system we live within, point of thread then being?

basically, you are absolutely partly correct


kinda

we are trained to think we can be problem solvers.
what we do is just transform client's visions into drawings

I am a free thinker. I was trained, however, to be a CAD monkey.

The problems we are trained to solve are the invariable conflicts between the desires of the client, the desires of the public, the necessities of nature and physics, and the regulations applied to the site and/or building type. The problems may not be obvious in the idea of "Someone wants a building. They find someone to design said building." but they are inevitable, and nobody's going to solve them but us.

i'll play devil's advocate. there are a number of architects that are problem makers, or at best problem ignorers. i believe many starchitects fall into this category. instead of taking the actual problems of client, site, budget, city, etc., there is a willfullness of form or conceptual conceit that supercedes the actual problems at hand with any project. for every seattle public library that actually rethinks the way a library works, there is just another frank gehry building out there that operates out of its own frank gehry-ness. in this sense, i would have a hard time saying these are problem solving buildings.

I agree, jafidler.

I also agree with rationalist and agfa8x that we think in bigger terms than just "how big does the space need to be to fit 300 people". As postneo said, we think about social impact.

As to how that creates value for the client: we need to convince them, and society needs to convince them, that reflecting certain societal concerns, perhaps even helping solve some of them, in their built infrastructure benefits not only society but their bottom line. We add value to their built infrastructure by making it culturally relevant, as well as functional, safe, etc.

So they bring us the "problem" of needing a building, and we respond with a bigger picture of how that building can improve their institution's existence as well as the context of the community in which they are located (which these days means the entire world).

So, OK, maybe what I just said is that we are taking a little problem and making it a bigger one..oops! Except as long as we provide the solution to the bigger problem, we can sleep at night too.

lb is that a concentrated or unconcentrated load? 2100sf for concentrated. 4500 for unconcentrated.

that's an interesting way of looking at it, lb. that problem making is not necessarily a bad thing if it is adding value to the project. not really a less is more argument, but a good more is more argument. sadly, the more usually get value engineered out of most projects.

for every socially conscious architect out there, how many are CAD monkeys? How many are paid to design mcmansions? Strip malls?

I don't know if every architect can be a problem solver. Many create problems, some solve them. Can't please everybody.

I've been through this argument with product design, my other background. For every great product that reaches the market, there are ten thousand that are absolutely terrible and give nothing to society (see anything by Karim Rashid). Do we really need another dolphin-shaped can opener? What problem is that solving? Industrial designers like to think of themselves as problem-solvers, just the same as architects. Reality is far from perfect, unfortunately.

In Gehry's defense, one could argue that he is solving a different set of problems - ones that he sees as important enough to work on. I would imagine that most architects are selective in the problems they elect to work on.

slantsix, I guess it depends if you count aesthetic problems as problems.

I guess I think of it not as creating problems, but choosing to address problems that they client was planning to ignore. The Client vs. Public problem is a common thing (though they are occasionally in harmony), the Client vs. City thing is always there, the Client vs. Physics thing is almost always there (i.e. client wants more space than they can fit on the site, or wants things to float), the Client vs. Nature thing is inherit in the idea of a building. Many people will decide "I can't please everyone," and choose to ignore what the public wants, ignore environmental impact, and compromise on the client's wants. A GOOD architect does not sidestep these proplems, but faces them head on and finds a solution that involves the least amount of ignoring of problems. Just because there are bad architects out there does not mean that architects as a profession are not problem solvers.

when there is a problem with construction... who do you think gets called to solve it?

.... thus, we solve problems, yes.

close one door :: open another

I do believe architects are, as a profession, about solving problems typically many times larger than the one the client identifies (the RIBA defines the briefing as a process of engagement).

To this how the project will affect the social, urban, spatial, environmental fabric etc. And in this effect will it be positive or negative...if negative how can it be minimized (solving of another problem), etc etc

speaking of problems, it reminds of those design|build projects done by those large contracting outfits (read non-architects) where they build on about 99% of the available land space (value for money?) but simply lack any difference from previous projects (cut & paste)

I THINK THAT EVERYONE IN THIS TREAD HAS CREATED A NEW PROBLEM...AND NOW IM ADDING TO IT!!! SOLVE THAT ONE Balumbum

delete the thread.

I like rationalist's explanation. It is so....(yes I'm going to say it)...rational.

the answer is 78. problem solved.

A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men

this thread has caused more problems than it has solved - arrete!

problem - client wants to build a house, but only available land is hillside site

answer - build house on hill

problem - how do you put a house on the side of a hill and keep it from sliding down the hill???

answer - lots of steel and concrete


problem - how do you make that steel and concrete look pretty

answer - board formed pattern

problem - what size boards do you use

answer - 2 x 6

architects are great problem solvers?



Solve this!